How can I erase() using a reverse iterator?

[Boltar]

Hi

I'm going through an STL list container using a reverse iterator but it
seems the erase() method only accepts ordinary iterators. Is there a
similar method that will accept reverse iterators or alternatively is
there a way to convert a reverse iterator to a normal one?

Thanks for any help

B2003

[Ondra Holub]

Boltar napsal:

Hi

I'm going through an STL list container using a reverse iterator but it
seems the erase() method only accepts ordinary iterators. Is there a
similar method that will accept reverse iterators or alternatively is
there a way to convert a reverse iterator to a normal one?

Thanks for any help

B2003

I do not know which type of container are you using. Anyway I think you
are not erasing all items in one step. So iterators will become
invalid. You should use

erase(container .rbegin(), container.rend( ));

Or simillar and it should work.

[Kai-Uwe Bux]

Boltar wrote:

I'm going through an STL list container using a reverse iterator but it
seems the erase() method only accepts ordinary iterators. Is there a
similar method that will accept reverse iterators or alternatively is
there a way to convert a reverse iterator to a normal one?

The reverse_iterato r has a member function base() that will give you the
value of the underlying iterator. Beware, however, that the underlying
iterator points to a different element. It's off by one, and the precise
relation ship is given in the standard [24.4.1/1] as:

&*(reverse_iter ator(i)) == &*(i - 1)
Best

Kai-Uwe Bux

[Boltar]

On 25 Jan, 11:39, Kai-Uwe Bux <jkherci...@gmx .netwrote:

value of the underlying iterator. Beware, however, that the underlying
iterator points to a different element. It's off by one, and the precise
relation ship is given in the standard [24.4.1/1] as:

&*(reverse_iter ator(i)) == &*(i - 1)

Thanks. That sounds like another triumph of committee decision making.
Why on earth did they think having it off by one would be useful? Ah
well....

B2003

[Kai-Uwe Bux]

Boltar wrote:

>

On 25 Jan, 11:39, Kai-Uwe Bux <jkherci...@gmx .netwrote:

>value of the underlying iterator. Beware, however, that the underlying
iterator points to a different element. It's off by one, and the precise
relation ship is given in the standard [24.4.1/1] as:

&*(reverse_iter ator(i)) == &*(i - 1)

Thanks. That sounds like another triumph of committee decision making.
Why on earth did they think having it off by one would be useful?

Well, this way, rbegin() corresponds to end() and rend() corresponds to
begin(). If you had rbegin() be end()-1, what would rend() be? Before you
answer begin()-1, you should consider the fact that that value simply does
not exist (not even for built-in arrays).
Best

Kai-Uwe Bux

[Gianni Mariani]

Boltar wrote:

>
On 25 Jan, 11:39, Kai-Uwe Bux <jkherci...@gmx .netwrote:

>>value of the underlying iterator. Beware, however, that the underlying
iterator points to a different element. It's off by one, and the precise
relation ship is given in the standard [24.4.1/1] as:

&*(reverse_iter ator(i)) == &*(i - 1)

Thanks. That sounds like another triumph of committee decision making.
Why on earth did they think having it off by one would be useful? Ah
well....

What would your alternative definition be ?

[Boltar]

On 25 Jan, 12:16, Gianni Mariani <gi3nos...@mari ani.wswrote:

What would your alternative definition be ?

Make them the same. Why would you want anything else? If I want to get
an iterator from a reverse iterator why would I want them to point at
different container entries? Its illogical.

B2003

[Boltar]

On 25 Jan, 12:04, Kai-Uwe Bux <jkherci...@gmx .netwrote:

>Well, this way, rbegin() corresponds to end() and rend() corresponds to
begin().

Hardly useful and also logically incorrect since it implies end() is
the last element in the container which it isn't. Far more useful to
have the iterators correspond to each other IMO.

B2003

[Clark S. Cox III]

Boltar wrote:

>
On 25 Jan, 12:16, Gianni Mariani <gi3nos...@mari ani.wswrote:

>What would your alternative definition be ?

Make them the same. Why would you want anything else? If I want to get
an iterator from a reverse iterator why would I want them to point at
different container entries? Its illogical.

Then what should rend() correspond to?
--
Clark S. Cox III
cl*******@gmail .com

[Pete Becker]

Boltar wrote:

>
On 25 Jan, 12:04, Kai-Uwe Bux <jkherci...@gmx .netwrote:

>Well, this way, rbegin() corresponds to end() and rend() corresponds to
begin().

Hardly useful

On the contrary: it's exactly what you need when you pass reverse
iterators to algorithms.

and also logically incorrect since it implies end() is
the last element in the container which it isn't.

It implies that cont.end() returns an iterator that is past the end of
the sequence held in the container, and that cont.rend() returns an
iterator that is past the end of the reverse sequence held in the container.

Far more useful to
have the iterators correspond to each other IMO.

You're focusing too much on containers. The fundamental concept in STL
is the range: a pair of iterators [first, last) that describes a
sequence of elements. The iterator first points to the first element in
the sequence. The iterator last points past the end of the sequence. You
visit all the elements in that range by incrementing first until it
equals last:

while (first != last)
do_something(fi rst++);

If reverse iterators worked the way you suggest, you'd have to duplicate
all of the algorithms with a different control loop to handle reverse
iterators.

--

-- Pete
Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd. (www.versatilecoding.com)
Author of "The Standard C++ Library Extensions: a Tutorial and
Reference." (www.petebecker.com/tr1book)